Why are music and fine arts taught in university?

[Spin Echo]

Generally they incorporate 4-5 history courses.

How else do you suggest learning about harmony and counter point and intervals and such besides attending courses? Yeah, you could read a book, but I could also read a book on quantum physics.

Reading a book and being tested on your comprehension of that book are two different things. In math and science, it is possible to be completely wrong. Not so for music; you can break all sorts of rules in music and it can still work. It can even be hailed as "innovative".

The problem is, music doesn't "work" if you break some rules. If you get a note in a chord wrong it sounds wrong. Yes, you'll get a few people that go 'ooo! oo! innovative' but most people will hear it as sounding wrong.

And there are always rules. I remember one violin lesson my teacher pointing out to me that rap was a highly rigid and structured form of music. For some reason (you'd have to ask a music major why) some sounds sound good to us and others don't. Like it or not, Rap still sounds better than dissonance.

How about MRI technicians? Auto mechanics? Aircraft mechanics? Nuclear plant technicians? Nuclear power plant operators? Chemical analysis technicians? These are all examples of "skilled labour" people who go to tech schools rather than universities. Your snobbery is showing.

How is saying that they have less theory snobbery?

Oh, and a nuclear power plant operator is expected to have a physics or an engineering degree.

No, although I did play piano for quite a few years when I was younger. Won a few awards, but I didn't keep up with it. Not saying I don't regret that; I probably should have kept up with it. But that doesn't mean it's not a trade skill. At the end of the day, it's still a vocational skill, and as far as I can tell, the only reason for putting it in university rather than trade schools is the fact that music people look down their noses at trade schools.

Universities are supposed to be for a small elite of professionals. Unfortunately, the reality, particularly for the humanities, is that they are a status symbol. Saying you went to university is another way of saying that your parents had enough money to send you to university, which is why the high-priced big-name schools have more prestige than the lesser ones even if there's no difference in quality of education. It's not really about education; it's about class and status. And seeing how many of the counter-arguments revolve around the idea that vocational skills training is for stupid people, it's pretty clear that this attitude is spread far and wide.

I never said that vocational skills are for stupid people, I said they involve less theory. The problem here is that you have the idea that universities are supposed to be for elite professionals when in reality they have been traditionally been a status symbol for the rich upper classes.

Like I said earlier, this thread is really an exercise in semantics. Doctors are just skilled tradesmen, very highly respected tradesmen, but still tradesmen. Are you going complain that universities have medical schools? You say that universities are for elite professionals. Isn't a master carpenter an elite professional? Why is what I do as a physcist more deserving of "elite" recognition than a musician?

[brianeyci]

If the free BA or the more advanced high school provides all the same things that today's equivalent BA would, wouldn't that still have a problem with the market being flooded with a bunch of high schoolers with advanced training that is now basic?

Let's say people don't go to college. What job market are their skills good for? Everyone has them. Is it a new one, or the same ones their old BA's were good for? If the latter is the case, aren't they still s.o.a?

Some of your ideas are interesting (some aspects of the tracking system, e.g.). Would you alter the structure of the semester year, though, to make it more like a college feel? When I was in high school, we were loaded up with 9+ classes in a single day. At least in college we can take fewer at a time, which allows for greater depth and more studying.

It seems like it would save money, but not help in the job market much. If I am misunderstanding, please explain to me. It's interesting.

Save money is the main thing for me, because I'm poor. But I can see why some people think it's a waste. I wouldn't alter the structure. I think the structure of university in humanities is utter shit to be honest. Engineers have classes 9 - 5 (at least in engineering programs over here) while humanities can pick classes in the middle of the night and have a few hours a week.

Look at it this way. Office monkies need BA now. That isn't going to change, unless you reverse the attitude about BA's (unlikely, once you smear something with shit it's never going to go away) or you lower the BA all the way to high school. That's a nasty solution, but I am pretty sure high schoolers could get it, especially if you're getting year 13 or year 14 like some people are wanting. You could start in year 11, 12, 13, 14 (two extra years) for a free BA in high school in say... American History.

Universities would scramble to differentiate themselves, but would ultimately fail unless they turned their program into elite. Look at what's happening now, BA in anything or B.Sc. in anything is what employers are looking for, because they're looking for basic competence in reading and writing and problem solving skills and they know high school doesn't give it. The side effect of offering BA's in high school would be universities would be forced to turn elite, or nobody would go to them.

[Turin]

Like I said earlier, this thread is really an exercise in semantics. Doctors are just skilled tradesmen, very highly respected tradesmen, but still tradesmen. Are you going complain that universities have medical schools? You say that universities are for elite professionals. Isn't a master carpenter an elite professional? Why is what I do as a physcist more deserving of "elite" recognition than a musician?

If you want to get into wording, "elite" is probably a continuum. Only an idiot would argue that becoming a doctor is as easy (or should be as easy) as learning to fix a toilet. Is being a theoretical physicist more or less than elite than a doctor? I don't know, but it's mostly irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the method and amount of education required by these different sorts of professions are dramatically different. At the end of the day, the professions we're calling "university elite" require lengthy and intensive theory lectures, labs experiences, etc. Compare to what we're calling a "trades" program, which should be a very different experience and doesn't require as much time. Using terms like "university", "technical college", or "trades school" are just labels of convenience for the discussion. But right now we have professions that make more sense as "technical college" together with professions that make more sense as "university" and it a) isn't a good pairing for the structure of the schools, and b) the shared nomenclature has a tendency to devalue the more difficult programs.

[Turin]

Look at it this way. Office monkies need BA now. That isn't going to change, unless you reverse the attitude about BA's (unlikely, once you smear something with shit it's never going to go away) or you lower the BA all the way to high school. That's a nasty solution, but I am pretty sure high schoolers could get it, especially if you're getting year 13 or year 14 like some people are wanting. You could start in year 11, 12, 13, 14 (two extra years) for a free BA in high school in say... American History.

So if I understand you correctly... except for the name "BA", your solution essentially consists of making a high school education do what it's supposed to do, leaving universities to deliver more advanced degrees. At the same time, you're allowing the current devaluation of the "status" of a BA to continue, rather than fighting it.

Hm, sounds like a suspiciously simple and workable idea.

[brianeyci]

So if I understand you correctly... except for the name "BA", your solution essentially consists of making a high school education do what it's supposed to do, leaving universities to deliver more advanced degrees. At the same time, you're allowing the current devaluation of the "status" of a BA to continue, rather than fighting it.

Hm, sounds like a suspiciously simple and workable idea.

Either universities revamp their programs not to be BA's and turn elite, or they die once students stop going for their really expensive four years of waste they get free in high school.

The four years of waste is non-trivial. Four years is four years of experience and time you can't get back, more than just fifty thousand dollars of education but all the money you could have been making. Right now a BA costs one hundred thousand dollars in terms of lost time and experience and money you could've made working instead, plus tuition costs. That is wrong.

Plenty of letters left in the alphabet. Universities as I understand them are like large corporations now, rather than educational institutions. You have to whip them.

[Spin Echo]

Like I said earlier, this thread is really an exercise in semantics. Doctors are just skilled tradesmen, very highly respected tradesmen, but still tradesmen. Are you going complain that universities have medical schools? You say that universities are for elite professionals. Isn't a master carpenter an elite professional? Why is what I do as a physcist more deserving of "elite" recognition than a musician?

If you want to get into wording, "elite" is probably a continuum. Only an idiot would argue that becoming a doctor is as easy (or should be as easy) as learning to fix a toilet. Is being a theoretical physicist more or less than elite than a doctor? I don't know, but it's mostly irrelevant.

I agree with you that becoming a doctor takes a lot more work than becoming a plumber, but it's still a trade.

What is relevant is that the method and amount of education required by these different sorts of professions are dramatically different. At the end of the day, the professions we're calling "university elite" require lengthy and intensive theory lectures, labs experiences, etc. Compare to what we're calling a "trades" program, which should be a very different experience and doesn't require as much time. Using terms like "university", "technical college", or "trades school" are just labels of convenience for the discussion. But right now we have professions that make more sense as "technical college" together with professions that make more sense as "university" and it a) isn't a good pairing for the structure of the schools, and b) the shared nomenclature has a tendency to devalue the more difficult programs.

So by your definition then, a music programs should be in univeristy, as it requires lengthy study and intensive theory?

How does having a university that has a music department devalue its science department?

[Darth Wong]

The problem is, music doesn't "work" if you break some rules. If you get a note in a chord wrong it sounds wrong. Yes, you'll get a few people that go 'ooo! oo! innovative' but most people will hear it as sounding wrong.

Oh puh-lease, there are entire genres of music which exist because somebody chose to break rules.

And there are always rules. I remember one violin lesson my teacher pointing out to me that rap was a highly rigid and structured form of music. For some reason (you'd have to ask a music major why) some sounds sound good to us and others don't. Like it or not, Rap still sounds better than dissonance.

So? Some car paint schemes look good to us while others don't; do you suggest that auto-body people take four-year courses in car paint scheme theory?

How about MRI technicians? Auto mechanics? Aircraft mechanics? Nuclear plant technicians? Nuclear power plant operators? Chemical analysis technicians? These are all examples of "skilled labour" people who go to tech schools rather than universities. Your snobbery is showing.

How is saying that they have less theory snobbery?

I daresay a chemical analysis tech needs more theory than a piano player.

Oh, and a nuclear power plant operator is expected to have a physics or an engineering degree.

When I worked in a nuclear power plant, I was told that one needed only an internal recommendation and the passage of numerous tests and training courses.

I never said that vocational skills are for stupid people, I said they involve less theory.

I have serious trouble believing that music theory is more complicated than what a nuclear technician needs to know.

The problem here is that you have the idea that universities are supposed to be for elite professionals when in reality they have been traditionally been a status symbol for the rich upper classes.

Correct, and that anachronistic usage has no place in the modern world, so they are now supposed to produce an elite professional class. That is their presumed function, except they're not really doing it. They're still performing their original function, and that's the problem. Now if you're saying that universities should be massively overhauled so that they perform some other function, then by all means, let me know what alternate function you had in mind.

Like I said earlier, this thread is really an exercise in semantics. Doctors are just skilled tradesmen, very highly respected tradesmen, but still tradesmen. Are you going complain that universities have medical schools? You say that universities are for elite professionals. Isn't a master carpenter an elite professional? Why is what I do as a physcist more deserving of "elite" recognition than a musician?

Yes. Like it or not, the fact is that you can become a very accomplished musician, even to the point of becoming world famous, without knowing a lick of theory. You said it yourself; we just "know" what sounds good, because at the end of the day, art and music are subjective things. Therefore, the theory may be interesting but I don't see why it's necessary. Trying to design a bridge with no theoretical knowledge, on the other hand, is a recipe for disaster.

Or to put this another way, why are the culinary arts taught in trade schools rather than university? Couldn't you easily put together a complicated multi-year program of history lessons and food theory? I mean sure, somebody can just learn what tastes good, but why do that when there's so much unnecessary extra stuff you can add on?

[Plekhanov]

I've a few friends who are music graduates and their courses focused more on music theory and composition than performance.

People who want to become professional musicians generally go to music colleges or conservatories where they do little else other than practice. Music course at Universities (or atleast at my local University) seem more directed at producing composures.

[Darth Servo]

The problem is, music doesn't "work" if you break some rules. If you get a note in a chord wrong it sounds wrong.

Thats only because you're used to hearing a given song a certain way. You come to expect the note(s) that come next and when a different note comes you say "WTF"

Yes, you'll get a few people that go 'ooo! oo! innovative' but most people will hear it as sounding wrong.

Like the enire genre of music known as 'Jazz'? A jazz soloist is literally making his song up on the spot.

And there are always rules. I remember one violin lesson my teacher pointing out to me that rap was a highly rigid and structured form of music.

Any "music teacher" who thinks sounds that completely lack anything even remotely resemblilng melody and/or harmony constitutes music needs their head examined.

For some reason (you'd have to ask a music major why) some sounds sound good to us and others don't.

See above--it all has to do with what you're accustomed to hearing. And my degree is in biology, not music (although I do play trumpet on occasion).

Like it or not, Rap still sounds better than dissonance.

Thats not exactly saying a whole lot. My farts sound better than static.

[Seggybop]

I'm still pretty confused by the meaning of this thread. Someone help me out here. Why would music, studio arts, design, or architecture ever be a part of a general humanities department in the first place?

Any university with a legitimate program in any of those areas would have a wholly dedicated department for it, the same way there should be a dedicated mechanical engineering or chemistry program. Is the OP assuming that any art-related subject is taught by a liberal arts department?

I've never seen music theory or sculpture or graphic design taught as part of humanities and if I did I'd assume any school that might be doing that would have a worthless undeveloped program in that area.

One could argue that studio art or design departments are essentially "trade schools" for their particular fields, but even if that was conceded, I don't see how it would help anyone to cut them off from universities.

[Darth Wong]

OK, since the distinction between tech school-trained skilled labour and university-trained professionals is being questioned, let's throw up some examples:

Doctors vs nurses
Engineers vs skilled tradesmen
Lawyers vs legal assistants
Scientists vs lab technicians

In all of these cases, there is a unifying thread: the university-trained professional makes the decisions, and the skilled labourer implements them. The professional generally does not do most of the hands-on work himself; his job is to know how to make the decisions.

Therein lies my problem with fine arts and music being taught in universities rather than trade schools; the student is actually a performer. If you look at the list above, the person who actually operates the instrument would seem to obviously belong in the latter category, would he not?

Certainly, you could have a history specialization in the history of music, but the idea that skilled labourers are necessarily ignorant of all theory is just plain silly. A nurse needs an enormous amount of knowledge, and would like to see some evidence for the assertion that a musician actually needs better theoretical thinking than a nurse or a lab technician.

The problem is that you cannot make this assertion without music majors getting defensive and essentially reacting as if I just called them a bunch of idiots by lumping them in with the skilled trades, which (even if they deny it) is the way they seem to be reacting.

[Spin Echo]

The problem is, music doesn't "work" if you break some rules. If you get a note in a chord wrong it sounds wrong.

Thats only because you're used to hearing a given song a certain way. You come to expect the note(s) that come next and when a different note comes you say "WTF

No, a 2 month old infant prefers to hear a consonance sound over a disonant sound. Don't try and tell me that's because a 2 month old infant is "used" to hearing anything. Some musical sounds are innately pleasing to us and some not, and there are mathematical reasons behind this

Yes, you'll get a few people that go 'ooo! oo! innovative' but most people will hear it as sounding wrong.

Like the enire genre of music known as 'Jazz'? A jazz soloist is literally making his song up on the spot.

There's a difference between breaking the rules of a genre and breaking the rules of music, so to speak.

And there are always rules. I remember one violin lesson my teacher pointing out to me that rap was a highly rigid and structured form of music.

Any "music teacher" who thinks sounds that completely lack anything even remotely resemblilng melody and/or harmony constitutes music needs their head examined.

Just because you don't like it (I'll agree with you on that) doesn't mean rap isn't music, it just chooses to emphasize rhythm over harmony, and within that construct, rap is highly structured.

For some reason (you'd have to ask a music major why) some sounds sound good to us and others don't.

See above--it all has to do with what you're accustomed to hearing. And my degree is in biology, not music (although I do play trumpet on occasion).

And as I disproved above.

[Darth Servo]

No, a 2 month old infant prefers to hear a consonance sound over a disonant sound. Don't try and tell me that's because a 2 month old infant is "used" to hearing anything. Some musical sounds are innately pleasing to us and some not, and there are mathematical reasons behind this

But you weren't talking about dissonant sounds on this point. You were talking about a musician hitting a wrong note.

Yes, you'll get a few people that go 'ooo! oo! innovative' but most people will hear it as sounding wrong.

Like the enire genre of music known as 'Jazz'? A jazz soloist is literally making his song up on the spot.

There's a difference between breaking the rules of a genre and breaking the rules of music, so to speak.

Who said anyting about breaking the rules of a genre? I was talking about making up a solo on the spot, out of thin air. Is there really any objective difference between hitting a "dissonant" wrong note in a classical score and a deliberate "dissonant" note in a jazz solo?

And there are always rules. I remember one violin lesson my teacher pointing out to me that rap was a highly rigid and structured form of music.

Any "music teacher" who thinks sounds that completely lack anything even remotely resemblilng melody and/or harmony constitutes music needs their head examined.

Just because you don't like it (I'll agree with you on that) doesn't mean rap isn't music, it just chooses to emphasize rhythm over harmony, and within that construct, rap is highly structured.

Good thing I didn't dismiss it as music simply because I don't like it. And its not that it "emphasizes rhythym over harmony". Its that rap HAS NO HARMONY or melody for that matter. It no more constitutes music than chanting constututes a song. You need NOTES to have music, not just rhythym.

[Darth Servo]

And you DO grow to appreciate dissonant music. How many infants would react positively to a strong Toccotta and Fugue?

[Simplicius]

Yes. Like it or not, the fact is that you can become a very accomplished musician, even to the point of becoming world famous, without knowing a lick of theory. You said it yourself; we just "know" what sounds good, because at the end of the day, art and music are subjective things. Therefore, the theory may be interesting but I don't see why it's necessary. Trying to design a bridge with no theoretical knowledge, on the other hand, is a recipe for disaster.

I offered a possible explanation for the breadth of a music education in my first post, as follows:

The idea, I suppose, is that music students should be given the opportunity to develop the intimacy with the entirety of the subject that will allow them to become great composers, conductors, or performers, since natural-born virtuosos are few and far between. I would bet that the same is true for the other arts - that making a career in that art requires a solid background in every aspect of the art, because there isn't much of a division of labor in art. Consequently, art students have to work their asses off if they expect to get anywhere.

Since the point is not only to become an accomplished performer, but to make a career in music, it would behoove the music student to be able to do more the just play. He may be required to teach, conduct, perform, compose, or any combination of the above in order to make a living in music, and this requires more than just practicing an instrument.

Therein lies my problem with fine arts and music being taught in universities rather than trade schools; the student is actually a performer. If you look at the list above, the person who actually operates the instrument would seem to obviously belong in the latter category, would he not?

As I noted previously, the divisions of labor in music are not that well defined across the field. Within an orchestra, sure they are - the conductor is the boss, and there is a hierarchy of principal players within individual sections. But a trained conductor might not always be able to work as a conductor, where he might be able to get a job as a musician instead. An orchestra musician might work in a music faculty as well as performing - many do. The conductor of my school orchestra wore three hats: conductor, professor, and composer.

Music and other arts are well-taught in dedicated trade schools - they are called conservatories. Juilliard's reputation is famous even among non-art folks. But, as I noted previously, a university can do more for a music education than a two-year community college program could, and those community colleges are where most vocational education can be found, at least in the US.

[Starglider]

In all of these cases, there is a unifying thread: the university-trained professional makes the decisions, and the skilled labourer implements them.

That would seem to imply that we should only train composers in a university environment, not performers; but isn't that largely the case anyway?

[Darth Wong]

In all of these cases, there is a unifying thread: the university-trained professional makes the decisions, and the skilled labourer implements them.

That would seem to imply that we should only train composers in a university environment, not performers; but isn't that largely the case anyway?

Well, simplicius does make a good point about how the division of labour is really badly blurred in the field of music. I guess my thinking is just that a whole helluva lot of music students go to university to learn something (for very expensive tuitions) that they could have easily learned at a community college. It's part of the general subject, explored in other threads, that universities are becoming gigantic rip-off institutions for fleecing unwary students out of their college fund money while giving them educations that are no more functionally useful than what they could have gotten at community college.

[Simplicius]

That would seem to imply that we should only train composers in a university environment, not performers; but isn't that largely the case anyway?

No, at least not as far as I have seen into university music programs. To complete the program and earn a degree, the student must fill requirements in ensemble performance, private lessons on an instrument, a keyboard requirement, courses in history, theory, and selections from other topics, conducting, and composition.

[Simplicius]

Double post, sorry.

It's part of the general subject, explored in other threads, that universities are becoming gigantic rip-off institutions for fleecing unwary students out of their college fund money while giving them educations that are no more functionally useful than what they could have gotten at community college.

It's the part about community college that I take issue with. I contend that the small size and funding of community colleges and the two-year program length is not sufficient for students of music or other arts. Universities multiply the resources and opportunities of community colleges many fold, and dedicated arts trade schools - such as Juilliard - do the same.

The point of training to be an artist is not to dabble, but to produce and perpetuate great art. Thus, art students should have the opportunity to cultivate whatever talents they have with training across the depth and breadth of the subject. The idea is to provide, through education, what accident gave people like Mozart - or at least the best approximation thereof. Conservatories and universities have the resources to devote to this kind of arts education, while community colleges do not.

[Spin Echo]

When I was a nuclear engineering major and worknig for a company doing nuclear engineering work, I was told you needed a degree to get an operators job. Either times have changed or there are different regulations between Canada and the US.

Therein lies my problem with fine arts and music being taught in universities rather than trade schools; the student is actually a performer. If you look at the list above, the person who actually operates the instrument would seem to obviously belong in the latter category, would he not?

Certainly, you could have a history specialization in the history of music, but the idea that skilled labourers are necessarily ignorant of all theory is just plain silly. A nurse needs an enormous amount of knowledge, and would like to see some evidence for the assertion that a musician actually needs better theoretical thinking than a nurse or a lab technician.

To try and sum up my view, a muscian as just a performer would be equivalent of some one from a trade school yes. If someone is willing to go through four years of learning the theory, physics, and history behind their instruments and music, I don't have a problem with considering that a university education.

In reference to nursing, doesn't one get a nursing degree from a college or university, not a trade school?

The problem is that you cannot make this assertion without music majors getting defensive and essentially reacting as if I just called them a bunch of idiots by lumping them in with the skilled trades, which (even if they deny it) is the way they seem to be reacting.

Do we actually have any music majors in here?

[Spin Echo]

No, a 2 month old infant prefers to hear a consonance sound over a disonant sound. Don't try and tell me that's because a 2 month old infant is "used" to hearing anything. Some musical sounds are innately pleasing to us and some not, and there are mathematical reasons behind this

But you weren't talking about dissonant sounds on this point. You were talking about a musician hitting a wrong note.

to quote myself:

If you get a note in a chord wrong it sounds wrong.

If you get a note in a chord wrong, unless you happen to produce another chord by accident, you get dissonance.

Yes, you'll get a few people that go 'ooo! oo! innovative' but most people will hear it as sounding wrong.

Like the enire genre of music known as 'Jazz'? A jazz soloist is literally making his song up on the spot.

There's a difference between breaking the rules of a genre and breaking the rules of music, so to speak.

Who said anyting about breaking the rules of a genre? I was talking about making up a solo on the spot, out of thin air. Is there really any objective difference between hitting a "dissonant" wrong note in a classical score and a deliberate "dissonant" note in a jazz solo?

I don't know much about jazz, but checking with the resident Sax players round lab, improv is structured, even if the notes are made up on the spot. As for the deliberate dissonant note, it must be properly implemented within the context of the music, otherwise a dissonant note in jazz will still sound wrong.

Good thing I didn't dismiss it as music simply because I don't like it. And its not that it "emphasizes rhythym over harmony". Its that rap HAS NO HARMONY or melody for that matter. It no more constitutes music than chanting constututes a song. You need NOTES to have music, not just rhythym.

Hamony and meoldy are de-emphasized in rap, but still present.

[Hawkwings]

In jazz, there is definitely structure in the improv solos. You still need to stay within the chords that the rhythm section is giving you, but you have some freedom within that, you can make up your own melody line, and yes, insert dissonance. But that has to serve some sort of purpose, it can't be "play random notes, watch the audience go ooh and ahh".

On the topic of rap... do you consider rudimental snare drumming to be music? Because that also has "no" melody and harmony, just rhythm. In essence, the rhythm is the melody, and the other concepts of music: dynamics, phrasing, tone, blend, are still there.

[Darth Servo]

On the topic of rap... do you consider rudimental snare drumming to be music?

No, I consider that to be practicing.

[Turin]

It's the part about community college that I take issue with. I contend that the small size and funding of community colleges and the two-year program length is not sufficient for students of music or other arts. Universities multiply the resources and opportunities of community colleges many fold, and dedicated arts trade schools - such as Juilliard - do the same... Conservatories and universities have the resources to devote to this kind of arts education, while community colleges do not.

I'm not seeing the difference between a conservatory and what's being proposed as visual arts / music "trade schools." The very definition of the trade school (in my mind) is this sort of specialized form of education. My own university was essentially a "design school" with a science department as a totally separate college within the university (and a humanities department that had a supporting role to the two major colleges and the handful of very minor ones).

In this case, having two very different kinds of programs under the same university caused fighting over limited resources and trying to shoehorn all the students into the same sort of generalized degree + specialization, rather than allowing the curriculum to flow from the area of specialization and supplementing it with humanities (writing, etc.) as required. We wouldn't have this sort of problem if the design school was a totally separate conservatory or trade school.

[Sriad]

When I was a nuclear engineering major and worknig for a company doing nuclear engineering work, I was told you needed a degree to get an operators job. Either times have changed or there are different regulations between Canada and the US.

Therein lies my problem with fine arts and music being taught in universities rather than trade schools; the student is actually a performer. If you look at the list above, the person who actually operates the instrument would seem to obviously belong in the latter category, would he not?

Certainly, you could have a history specialization in the history of music, but the idea that skilled labourers are necessarily ignorant of all theory is just plain silly. A nurse needs an enormous amount of knowledge, and would like to see some evidence for the assertion that a musician actually needs better theoretical thinking than a nurse or a lab technician.

To try and sum up my view, a muscian as just a performer would be equivalent of some one from a trade school yes. If someone is willing to go through four years of learning the theory, physics, and history behind their instruments and music, I don't have a problem with considering that a university education.

In reference to nursing, doesn't one get a nursing degree from a college or university, not a trade school?

The problem is that you cannot make this assertion without music majors getting defensive and essentially reacting as if I just called them a bunch of idiots by lumping them in with the skilled trades, which (even if they deny it) is the way they seem to be reacting.

Do we actually have any music majors in here?

I will finish my music degree in a couple years, Baron Scarpia certainly knows a lot about vocal technique and classical music (and is a great big queer ) all of which inclines me to think he has a degree in music as well. (fact checking old posts: he is indeed a professional singer, though not one who posts here much these days)

I don't mean to come off as defensive, I just have an intimate understanding of how much active thought goes on while it looks like someone is merely standing there and singing. Whether nurses think that hard when they're putting a needle in your arm or looking over charts I have no clue, not being a nurse, but I think as hard when I'm singing as I did when I was doing homework for advanced calculus, and a whole lot more than I ever needed to when I was helping build houses. (not, admittedly, something for which we needed to go to a trade school)

And I'm not asking anyone to like it, but saying that hip-hop/rap isn't music is just being churlish.